[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20071103050137.GE2863@webber.adilger.int>
Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2007 13:01:37 +0800
From: Andreas Dilger <adilger@....com>
To: Mingming Cao <cmm@...ibm.com>
Cc: ext4 development <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC]Ext4: Use get_cpu()/put_cpu() in preemptible
context
On Nov 02, 2007 17:35 -0700, Mingming Cao wrote:
> Index: linux-2.6.24-rc1/fs/ext4/mballoc.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.24-rc1.orig/fs/ext4/mballoc.c 2007-11-02 17:22:18.000000000 -0700
> +++ linux-2.6.24-rc1/fs/ext4/mballoc.c 2007-11-02 17:23:02.000000000 -0700
> @@ -4006,7 +4006,8 @@ static void ext4_mb_group_or_file(struct
> return;
>
> BUG_ON(ac->ac_lg != NULL);
> - ac->ac_lg = &sbi->s_locality_groups[smp_processor_id()];
> + ac->ac_lg = &sbi->s_locality_groups[get_cpu()];
> + put_cpu();
>
> /* we're going to use group allocation */
> ac->ac_flags |= EXT4_MB_HINT_GROUP_ALLOC;
Shouldn't the put_cpu() be after ac->ac_lg is no longer being used?
I guess there would otherwise be a danger of other processes using
the same s_locality_groups[] struct?
Cheers, Andreas
--
Andreas Dilger
Sr. Software Engineer, Lustre Group
Sun Microsystems of Canada, Inc.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists